State of Iowa v. Charles Adolph Mimms ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1781
Filed June 21, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CHARLES ADOLPH MIMMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County,
Rustin Davenport, Judge.
Charles Mimms appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction.
AFFIRMED.
Karmen R. Anderson of Anderson & Taylor, PLLC, Des Moines, for
appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Vogel, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
BADDING, Judge.
Charles Mimms appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction—following
an Alford plea1—for lascivious acts with a child. In challenging the court’s decision
to not impose a suspended prison sentence, he argues the district court
overlooked his “extensive pretrial incarceration” of 120 days. Given this “significant
punishment” he already received, Mimms asserts the court should have given
more weight to “other, less invasive options” for rehabilitation. Mimms also
suggests the court merely cited “boilerplate reasons for imposing a sentence of
incarceration without any specific explanation in this case.”
We review sentencing decisions for correction of errors at law and “will not
reverse the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some
defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724
(Iowa 2002). “Sentencing decisions . . . are cloaked with a strong presumption in
their favor.” State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000) (ellipsis in
original) (citation omitted). And our job is not to “second guess” the sentencing
court’s decision. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 724.
In pushing for imprisonment, the State highlighted the nature of the offense
against the three-year-old child, Mimms’s extensive criminal history, and the
recommendation in the presentence investigation report. That report detailed his
indeed extensive criminal history, family and employment circumstances, and prior
interventions aimed at rehabilitation. In his version of the events to the
1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970) (“An individual accused of
crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of
a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the
acts constituting the crime.”).
3
presentence investigator, Mimms stated: “I don’t blame anyone for this except the
system itself.” In turn, Mimms requested a suspended sentence and probation
given his past “success[] in the community” and his prospects for employment.
In reaching its sentencing decision, the court explained as follows:
The law of Iowa requires the court impose a sentence that will best
provide for the defendant’s rehabilitation, protect the community, and
deter others from committing similar crimes. In considering these
matters, I consider your age, your attitude, your prior criminal history,
employment, financial and family circumstances, nature of the
offense, and—the recommendations of the parties, and the ability to
be rehabilitated through community services.
I’ve considered the request for a suspended sentence.
However, given the prior criminal record, given the nature of the
offense, given the recommendations of the presentence
investigation report, I find that a ten-year prison term not suspended
is appropriate.
And in its written sentencing order, the court noted its consideration of Mimms’s
age, attitude, criminal history, and employment, financial and family
circumstances, as well as the nature of the offense, including
whether a weapon or force was used in the commission of the
offense, the recommendations of the parties, and other matters
reflected in the court file and record, including the presentence
investigation report, for the protection of society and rehabilitation of
defendant.
Turning to Mimms’s arguments on appeal, we first note that Mimms must
affirmatively show an abuse of discretion or defect in sentencing procedure to
overcome the presumption of validity. See State v. Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554, 572
(Iowa 2018). As to the claim that the court failed to take the time he already served
into account, the court considered the presentence investigation report, which
stated that Mimms had been incarcerated since his arrest, as did the court file
itself. So Mimms has not affirmatively shown the court abused its discretion on
this point. Furthermore, Mimms frames this consideration as a mitigating
4
sentencing factor, and the court need not specifically acknowledge each such
factor. See State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). To the extent
that Mimms argues the court did not consider options for rehabilitation short of
prison, the court stated it had considered Mimms’s prospects for rehabilitation
through services in the community.
As to Mimms’s claim that the court failed to provide a sufficient explanation
for its sentencing decision, the court expressly considered the presentence
investigation report; the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation; protection of the
community from further offenses; Mimms’s age, criminal history, and employment
and family circumstances; and the nature of the offense. See Iowa Code
§§ 901.5, 907.5(1) (2022); State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 554–55 (Iowa 2015).
We find the court’s statements about its sentencing decision to be sufficient and
affirm the sentence imposed. See State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa
2015).
AFFIRMED.